After the surprising inclusion of JOKER in Venice’s competition lineup, festival artistic director Alberto Barbera revealed in an interview that, to accommodate Hollywood studios’ common hesitance to enter their awards season hopefuls in competition for fear of bad perception if the prize horses don’t win anything, they offered Warner Brothers both a competition and an out-of-competition slot à la A STAR IS BORN last year, expecting to go with the latter. But apparently the studio and director Todd Phillips felt so confident about the movie that they went ahead and took up the more prestigious and riskier offer.
And you know what? They’re right to feel that way. The origin story of the most famous villain in the world of comics, though not your typical festival film by any means and might not get much love from Lucrecia Martel’s jury, is likely to do gangbusters business at the box office on its way to awards glory, including surefire best actor nominations for Joaquin Phoenix.
But let’s go easy on the hyperbole for a second. What kind of movie is JOKER anyway? As suggested in the trailers, it’s a gritty, grimy, glamor-free take on the underbelly of Gotham City that breeds a future criminal mastermind. Arthur Fleck (Phoenix) is a struggling clown with a clinical laughing disorder who gets bullied on a daily basis for his appearance and demeanor. He lives with his ailing mother Penny (Frances Conroy), dreams about making it to the talk show of hero Murray Franklin (Robert De Niro) as a stand-up comedian, has a secret crush on his single-mother neighbor Sophie (Zazie Beetz).
In short, this is a guy with very humble means. And as the movie progresses, we witness the last remaining support systems in Arthur’s life being pulled away and secrets about his connection to the powerful Wayne family revealed, sinking a guy who only ever wanted to make people laugh deeper and deeper into despair until finally he sees nothing but comedy in the cruel, godforsaken world around him.
Phillips, who co-wrote the screenplay, is an effective if not the most subtle storyteller. He communicates the overall atmosphere of mass apathy well, even if the repeated emphasis on Arthur’s predicament and the abuse he suffers might seem a bit excessive. Then again, when we reach the third act, where Arthur is truly falling apart and unwittingly ignited a city-wide revolution of nobodies, the broad, angry strokes of his direction do hit hard. The pivotal scene of Arthur appearing on the Murray Franklin show is staged and cut with such brutal bluntness it perfectly reflects the comically horrifying nature of the situation.
There’s no getting around the fact, though, that Phoenix not only made the film, he is the film. Appearing in essentially every single scene, the notably Oscar-less actor played the role he was born to play and gave it his all. Arthur Fleck is a physically emaciated, behaviorally inadequate character prone to bouts of hysterical laughter. It’s an undeniably flamboyant part that requires lots of smiling cryfaces and manic outbursts. But the true essence of Phoenix’s performance, as always, lies in the quieter moments. Moments where he, after a ruthless homicidal act, shed the skin of Arthur Fleck to find the posture of the Joker through the course of a slow, macabre dance. Moments where he, after fulfilling his lifelong dream and realizing how he’s still being treated as the butt of the joke, calmly shares with a live TV audience the chilling, heartbreaking conclusions he’s come to. It’s in these moments, as well as those ordinary day-to-day exchanges between him and the impeccably cast supporting players (including De Niro via a wonderful role reversal from THE KING OF COMEDY), that you sense how Phoenix is dedicating his entire being to inhabiting such an utterly damaged character.
There are a lot more details that comic book fans will pick up on, but ultimately what struck me the most about JOKER is that it’s an ode to and a requiem for the little people. Those who get chewed up and spit out by the system day in day out. Seen in the context of the movie, Gotham is not a made-up dystopia with crazy Joel Schumacher sets, but a very real, easily conceivable world where people have simply stopped caring about those in need.
Meanwhile, Chilean director Pablo Larraín’s relationship drama EMA – a film that will not get a fraction of JOKER’s attention but is almost destined for some jury love – screened last night. This was one of my most anticipated titles of the festival, and sure enough it delivered the fireworks – even if in ways I wasn’t expecting.
By far the most experimental film of the director to date, EMA is an impressionistic, erotically charged character study that confounds and dazzles in equal measure. The basic premise is immediately clear: Dancer Ema (Mariana Di Girolamo) and her choreographer husband Gastón (Gael García Bernal) can’t have kids and adopted a son, Polo. After Polo took to playing with fire and caused a horrible accident, the young couple gave him back for adoption in shock. This decision haunts Ema and eventually propels her to go on a journey to find her son and possibly also herself.
With a filmography that includes NO, THE CLUB, NERUDA and JACKIE, at this point I think Larraín might in fact be incapable of doing something that’s not at least wildly interesting – which is certainly the case with EMA, his first feature after directing Natalie Portman to an Oscar nomination in the Jackie O biopic – but it’s so much more too. For the bulk of the film, the narrative is disorientingly fragmented. Ema gets into bitter arguments with Gastón, tries to find a new teaching job, hooks up with a married firefighter, hooks up with her divorce lawyer, hooks up with friends in disco-lit orgies … all the while random dance numbers choreographed to a sexy, psychedelic soundtrack are sprinkled throughout.
Indeed, as much as I wouldn’t claim to know what the film is about exactly, I can tell that music and dance are an essential part of its conception. Not only do they map out the visual and aural DNA of a film that’s sensually arresting from start to finish, they provide the emotional beats the characters might not be able to articulate. As such, Jose Luís Vidal’s expressive, impassioned choreography must be credited while Nicolas Jaar’s strikingly stylish score with traces of deep house can safely be expected to top many a top 10 film music lists by year’s end.
Di Girolamo is mesmerizing to watch as the inscrutable titular character. By turns aggressive, soulful and vulnerable, you can’t take your eyes off her even before her motivations and calculations are revealed in the last 10 minutes – a bona-fide contender for the best actress prize in a week’s time. That is, if the jury does not feel inclined to hand out even shinier statues to Larraín’s film, an investigation of a uniquely female experience that unfolds like a mystery and feels endlessly, defiantly alive every step of the way.
For Oscar trivia purposes, it would be pretty weird if the Joker becomes the second character (after Vito Corleone) to produce multiple Oscar winners.
…especially considering the De Niro connection.
I really hope Phoenix is nominated and wins. He is a great actor whose overdue. Also would love to see all the people who say that its not appropriate for Phoenix to win for this to freak out.
He has such a long and eclective list of memorable performances in good to great films, going back to Parenthood that was 30 years ago. Then not long after the cult classic To Die For, not long after that the BP winner Gladiator that garnered him his first Oscar nod and since then he has been reliably delivering one great turn after the other, directed by some of the best in the industry. It also won’t hurt that in those 30 years since his first big film, he basically has worked with everyone so he could probably count on some serious industry support during the awards season, too.
And Joker starts at 75 on Metacritic after 9 reviews.
Arguably Todd Phillips has never made a good film before, the reason why despite the strong trailers, I was skeptical. I’m glad to be proven wrong because early word seems to be rather positive and Phoenix could very well become the first actor to not only get a lead acting nomination for a comic book movie, but also win.
Side note : Could we have our early frontrunners in all four acting categories already ? Zellweger, Phoenix, Dern and Pitt ? Needless to say, the key word here is “early”. The “early” frontrunner sometimes goes all the way…and sometimes loses steam midway through enough to miss out on even the nomination let alone the big win. However I think these four definitely look very good for the nominations the very least. We’ll see.
How dare you! The Hangover is one of the greatest movies of all time!!!!!
Hence the “arguably” part. Well, let’s just agree to disagree on this one. I will say it was a critically acclaimed moneymaker so that’s quite the accomplishment. Having said that, I hated it.
Laura Dern as an early frontrunner makes me very happy.
Between Big Little Lies, Marriage Story and Little Women, she is having an absolutely epic year and could be perfectly positioned in supporting for an easy Oscar win, her first!
It’s the strangest thing. I am an absolute actressexual but I just don’t love Dern.
I don’t think Zellweger can be considered early frontrunner.And Pitt is a vulnerable frontrunner. If Dafoe goes Supporting for “The Lighthouse”, I think he wins. But about Zellweger: “Judy” is opening to a 64 metascore. Said to be a very Ok film. The only actresses who got nominated with such a low Metascore grade were Bullock and Streep in very specific cases. If Johansson wins Best Actress at Venice, for me she gets the early frontrunner status. But Joaquim Phoenix alert: The film is opening at a 74 metascore, so it is great, good, but not loved. And Phoenix is openly an anti awards figure. With strong competition this year (Norton is my favorite), it can be a factor. I think everybody agrees on LAURA DERN, and I only see Bening as a possible treat.
Oh, please, please, please! That would be fabulous! Martel giving Johansson the award after she rejected directing the Black Widow movie. I’d pay for that moment!
Valid points all around however I do believe that the fact Zellweger plays an icon and her performance has been getting unanimous raves even if her film hasn’t, sort of puts her at the front at least for now.
Dafoe is a treasure but I don’t see him winning over Pitt in supporting, latter has considerably more buzz in a considerably bigger film that can count on a lavish big studio Oscar campaign that will no doubt focus on PItt having been an iconic movie star for decades without a single acting Oscar to his name.
Agreed on Phoenix and Dern.
“a lavish big studio Oscar campaign that will no doubt focus on PItt
having been a film icon for decades without a single acting Oscar to his
name.”
Pitt is a bigger star than Dafoe, but it would be unusual to mount such a campaign against Dafoe, who is such a heavily respected and well-liked actor that also has never won
Dafoe is in a movie that most likely few voters will see and that is clearly not going anywhere near a best picture nomination. It’s also supposedly a really disturbing and wild film with also another supposedly amazing performance that would either steal votes in the same category or would feel like an easy coattail if Dafoe were to win and the actors would be in different categories and at least to me the idea of Pattinson getting nominated seems very unlikely
I don’t think it would be “against” Dafoe, it would be simply “for” Pitt. If I’m being honest, knowing how the Academy tends to treat films like The Lighthouse, I’m not even sure it will register with them in any categories at all in the end. If anyone, I would watch out for Shia Labeouf (Honey Boy) in supporting, his narrative has it all : critically acclaimed indie film + comeback story + career-best, revelatory performance + playing his own father and the list goes on.
Phantom, good points, but I have arguments to cement my opinion:
– Pitt is officially already an Oscar Winner (won as the producer of “12 Years a Slave”), so, tecnically, would be no urgency to reward him.
– Tarantino and Tarantino’s film, despite being aclaimed, is surrouind with some controversies.
– Pitt himself is vulnerable to some controversies talking.
– I don’t see him as an European favorite (which Dafoe definitely is)
– I think “The Lighthouse” will be embraced by the Oscars.
– Almost nobody was expecting Dafoe’s nomination for “At Eternity Gate”, and it shows that the Actor has a lot of good will in the Academy.
– Can he lose 3 years in a row? – I just don’t think so.
You could be right but Dafoe, being up against a big movie star in a big, critically acclaimed hit about Hollywood, will need a perfect sweep in the precursor stage of the season, as in he has to win the majority of the critics group awards, and then at least 3 out of the big quartet of SAG, Bafta, Golden Globe and Critics Choice. The only reason why I still think it is Pitt’s to lose, is because I could easily see him win the big quartet even if someon else, probably Dafoe, sweeps the critics groups.
Williams also got nominated for My Week with Marilyn with a 65 MC score and has won a good share of pretty high profile critics precursors. Based on reviews, Zellweger may also get her own share. But the problem I’m seeing that may affect her campaign is the backlash that’s about to come out that goes with the acclaim on her performance. We all know how dirty the awards campiagn can be.
My dear Sato, I think backlash will not be a problem or the case for Zellweger. She is very well liked. But as you can see, with a 65 metascore, sure, you can be nominated, but win, is very difficult – unless you are Meryl
The only early frontrunner I really query is Zellweger. The movie hasn’t been greatly received and that could hurt her, plus it just doesn’t feel like her year to me (I know that is not exactly a reasoned argument but it’s just where I’m at with my thinking)… I think she’ll be nominated but I have Scarlett Johansson ahead of her right now and let’s wait for Cynthia Erivo and Saoirse Ronan!
I’m withholding judgement until I see the movie, but from everything I’ve read about it, “Joker” almost sounds like Phillips had a script about a disturbed loner and just decided to make him into the Joker in order to better help the movie get made. It’s not against comic book lore or anything since the Joker famously doesn’t have a set origin story, but it seems like you could have the exact same movie without any of the Joker connections (the purple suit and facepaint, etc.)
How this will affect its Oscar chances is up in the air. One of the most famous pro-Dark Knight arguments is that it’s a comic book movie that “doesn’t feel like a comic book movie,” as in Nolan basically made a modern crime drama that just happened to be about Batman and the Joker. I’m sure some older Academy members may balk at nominating Phoenix since Ledger’s performance is still so fresh in everyone’s mind.
“Joker” almost sounds like Phillips had a script about a disturbed loner
and just decided to make him into the Joker in order to better help the
movie get made.
I agree with the Dr. What I’ve read about the character-based movie, sounds like a horror movie. A loner, brooding, mentally sick man. Do (I) want to see such a movie? Nope.
Metacritic scores have no bearing on Oscars. So stop quoting them. And especially for films that appeal to the Oscars, and films that are Oscar catnip. And especially in the Best Actor category (Theory of Everything, Darkest Hour, Bohemian Rhapsody, Dallas Buyers Club, The Revenant, etc).
You’re right, but most films nominated for best picture are over 70 on Metacritic, even all the ones you listed above are 72 or higher besides Bohemian (which was a very rare case).
Last year alone, we had 3 Best Picture nominees below 70 on Metacritic (Vice, Green Book & Bohemian Rhapsody). Three very divisive films, that all won Oscars. One won Best Picture, and the other one won the most Oscars of the night. And if you look carefully at those films, they are exactly the type of Oscar crowd Joker appeals to. The old white men, the steakeaters, the American Sniper crowd.
Last year was particularly weird in terms of how much it diverged from critics (and by that I mean awarding films received negatively by critics rather than diverging from critics awards)… It’s very different to how the race has been going in recent years. Whether that is a fluke or whether it is an indication of the direction the academy is now heading in I do not know.
Mostly I agree but early on they are a good indication of buzz. If a film is doing badly on MC at festivals it can correlate to it getting lost amongst all the festival films… But then later in the season they become pretty much useless. Though generally films do need a positive metacritic score – Bohemian Rhapsody being a very specific stand alone exception.
Well, “Joker” is now with a 74 at Metacritic, being panned by Time Magazine and Roger Ebert Site. Good but not so great?
The rating here doesn’t seem indicative of quality. Very few people are actually giving it 70. It has lot of 100s and quite a few really low scores… So I think love it or hate it/ very divisive should be a better description than good not great.
Probably good enough not to hurt Phoenix’s nomination but not good enough to register with voters in other top categories making an actual win in Best Actor hard considering that win usually comes with a corresponding BP nod.
Then again it is early days, it is getting decent early word out of an arthouse-heavy film festival, if the critical scores and consensus end on a higher note in October AND the film turns into the big moneymaker it is widely expected to, we can reevaluate its Oscar chances. For now it looks like Phoenix is its best shot.